But not the quick fix Mr Spencer is looking for.
I don't think Mr Spencer is looking for a fix. AlastarOG already pointed this out: behavior strongly suggests he just wants to troll people by repeating a bunch of tired myths and then spewing lame sarcasm at anyone who's a sucker enough to try and patiently rebuke them yet again.
Protip: Your input will be a lot more meaningful if you take the time to understand and actually re-state positions other than yours, rather than simply assuming base motives and dishonesty on the part of everyone except you. In the hundreds of threads about the Leadership feat, any number of DMs have weighed in about the myriad reasons they encourage it -- none of which have to do with "player cheese."
Villain Name: Gin Dildo
So, your casters don't need to perform verbal or somatic components, and casting is instantaneous? Do they need to make Concentration checks if threatened? No? The house rules you're describing, to me, seem even stranger than fumble rules.
So I don't really like these types of threads since they just become complaint threads.
Gee, that almost sounds like a complaint right there...
But yeah, I agree with idea that its insulting to see people think name sounds stupid just because its not English name
That one, too, come to think of it.
David knott 242 wrote:
On the other hand, if a substantial proportion of the audience is blind but not deaf, then making noise for their benefit would actually be helpful.
Exactly so. I'm all in favor of making accommodations for a disadvantaged group, but not if it's at the expense of disenfranchising an even more underprivileged group.
A point was made that people who don't do well in noisy crowds would prefer the "jazz hands," but one might reasonably assume there are an equal number of people who don't do well in large crowds of people who are making exaggerated arm movements.
I believe what happened is that the more progressive people said "no cheering because of disabilities" meaning social anxiety, sensory processing disorder etc.
I would think that just sitting among a huge crowd would already present a barrier for those people -- wouldn't they be more likely to watch it televised, rather than live, and text or tweet in comments/approvals? I, personally, have a very hard time being around that many people (my father has the same problem), but those people not cheering doesn't in any way lessen the issue.
"Jazz hands" are inherently exclusive of those with limited use/mobility in their arms, and also exclusive of the visually-impaired. On the other hand, cheering or clapping provide a visual as well as auditory display, can be performed by those with limited arm use (cheering) and by those with limited use of their voices (clapping), and are therefore MORE inclusive, not less.
The attempt at inclusiveness isn't necessarily bad, but the glaring obliviousness to basic logic is.
Okay folks, that was a fun Pathfinder game. Hope to see you all next week. Oh and make sure you bring another character sheet okay? Great see you then.
As opposed to "Oh, you're 1st level and you encounter Cthulhu! Roll initiative! A 6! Cthulhu rolls... 19! I mean 1! He slips on a banana peal and dies! You win!!! Okay folks, that was a fun Pathfinder game."
If you thought your post was scathing commentary, this reply is what it sounds like coming from the other direction.
Does that also apply to murder, in your mind? It seems like a somewhat morally-dubious conclusion.
I agree that Democrats haven't been great on the economic front in the last decades, though I don't think it's as bad as you do. They've still vastly outperformed Republicans.
That's like the Son of Sam saying, "well, I didn't kill nearly as many people as Ted Bundy!"When enough people get desperate enough, "not as bad" still isn't good enough. At least Bernie, as crazy and unelectable an old coot as any we've recently seen, understood this much. Trump got it -- we know he won't fix it in reality (and will in fact make it a lot worse), but at least addressing it head-on was enough to get him elected.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
"Identity politics" is literally just a buzzword for "we're tired of hearing about civil rights, worry more about white men".
As opposed to, "Hell with the economy, let us be good serfs to our corporate overlords, as long as white men are serfs on the same (or, preferably, lower rung) than a transgendered biracial person." Which is something I hear a lot of, just not in those exact words.
Would you kindly shut up? This used to be an interesting thread.
You mean, before it turned into:"Atheists are all misogynist pigs!"
"No, leftists are just witch hunting, as usual!"
"Ha! See, you ARE a pig! Oink! Oink!"
I'm pretty sure that "I'm rubber, you're glue!" should come next.
The printmaker Anthony Green has said in a BBC interview that an interest in religious themes can be the kiss of death to an artist’s career. The quest for transcendence tends to be shunned in contemporary fiction, too...
That's why Passion of the Christ "only" grossed $611,899,420 so far and counting. Not like it's the highest-earning R-rated film in U.S. history or anything... (Wait, need to check against Deadpool! Yep, Mel still noses out Marvel by $7M or so.)
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Back in the day, a clone was a copy of you, not a place for your spirit to go back to. That's why all of Manshoon's clones activated all at once and declared war on each other. A couple were still around after the dust settled, one of them got turned into a vampire.
Bah. 2e Forgotten Realms is newfangled. Get off my lawn!
I keep seeing comments like these, and I keep thinking that these people died of various causes -- the year itself is not a sentient being that murdered them.
Yeah, I get it, it's supposed to be a witticism, but it's only witty for the first person who said it, not for everyone who keeps repeating it.
All that said, I kind of liked George Michael. Sorry to see him go.
I would point out as evidence of this countless men who killed and died on war fields in the name of imaginary beings.
Which, when you describe it that way, makes it seems very pointless and silly, doesn't it?
Now that we got that laid out let's scale down and bring it back to game level. The "fluff" is not fluff at all. It is the material with which the fabric of Golarion's reality is made.
Wait... you just lost me. People adhering maniacally to imaginary stuff leads them to pointlessly die IRL, so we should encourage and, indeed, enforce it in a game, too?
Hopefully that's not where you were headed. I'll try and develop the courage to read paragraphs 75-116 of your post and see if I'm misunderstanding.
We don't need no book learnin'! We came up by the school of hard knocks (and pretend like that ain't such a tired cliche that it should have gone into the dustbin years ago)!I reckon the only book we need is this here Good Book, and we need common sense a lot more than book sense!
Wait... is the OP really saying "The game is totally unbalanced, but any problems that causes are the players' fault for not being sufficiently unaware of the problems"?
The Dutch should never repair dikes and levees. They should just tell people that walking and swimming are the same thing, so the problem will go away. It's all just dryness envy, after all.
Forever Slayer wrote:
I know your miles may vary but I am seeing a lot of wrong reasons to like a certain type of character.
You failed the "fact or opinion" quiz in 2nd grade, didn't you?I can decide I like Commoners the best. I don't even NEED a reason for that at all -- much less the "right" reason.
Is it so hard to understand?
Disagree =/= fail to understand. Again, my quibble is with elevating "look at other stuff as sort of a list of loose guidelines that may or may not apply, then pick a number" to the status of a "rule."
That's not what I'd consider a set of rules. It's barely a rule of thumb.
In traffic, the rule is to stop at a red light. Not "compare what the other people are doing and then decide if it's OK to ignore the light, or maybe follow it, or maybe modify it." There are then additional rules to determine if it's OK to turn right on red, after having stopped; these may vary by state or even by light, but not by the driver's opinion.